If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

OptiBoard has an opportunity for a new main sponsor beginning immediately.
Started in 1995, OptiBoard has grown into the largest online site for eyecare professionals in the world. If you have an interest in becoming an OptiBoard sponsor, please let me know. Thanks, Steve
P.S. I have already turned down an online retailer as a sponsor. It would be nice if the eyecare industry would support OptiBoard as much as much as OptiBoard supports them.

Wes,
The problem with the ABO's philosophy of providing a dumber and dumber test over time to match the market skill level cannot be understated for its over all impact on the industry. First, psychologically they are sending the message that Opticians now need to know less than they once did, and that is OK. As a standards based test by lowering the testing requirements they are effectively lowering the standards for the entire industry. Although we think the test should be based on standards, the ABO's impact is so large the exam actually SETS the standard.

2nd is that many people (yea, me included) only studied enough to pass the test. A harder test would mean some people (not all) would take it more seriously, study and prepare more. We would simply leave the testing cycle better educated.

There was a time about 50 years ago where the Bar Exam was not impossibly difficult (remember the movie "Catch me if You Can" where Frank just took the Bar and passed? its a true story) and many attorneys apprenticed as clerks and paralegals, took the test and were lawyers. As the TEST increased in difficulty, more future attorneys studied formally to meet the requirements. The difficulty of the test actually created a market for education. Now 99.9% of lawyers have JD degree, and spend another $20K after school for Bar exam test prep courses. The increase in just the test difficulty changed the entire market.

The same holds true for optical, as the test gets easier it diminishes the need for education, formal or not.

Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy ~Benjamin Franklin

The general Optician knows very litte about optics, unfortunately. This is the fault of the the silly "apprenticeship" system. It is, in fact, not a true apprenticeship at all, but cheap labor.

Warren,
You are correct in that the Apprenticeship system of the past was a failure. But not a miserable one, just a misplaced one. Although I believe strongly that formal college education is the future of Opticianry, I also believe that a good and solid Apprenticeship is the only way to get to that point. We can't just focus on educating future Opticians if there is no Optician able to teach them.

The only way to raise the bar and educate future opticians is to educate the current ones as well.

Although you see Apprenticeship competing with formal education, I do not, I see it complimenting it. Although it was a failure and excuse for cheap labor, I still see the possibility that a better Apprenticeship program could be developed to address those issues and form a foundation that support and help formal education prosper.

(disclaimer: I am currently an educator at a College level Opticianry program that focuses on Apprentice education, so I have some bias)

Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy ~Benjamin Franklin

Wes,
The problem with the ABO's philosophy of providing a dumber and dumber test over time to match the market skill level cannot be understated for its over all impact on the industry. First, psychologically they are sending the message that Opticians now need to know less than they once did, and that is OK. As a standards based test by lowering the testing requirements they are effectively lowering the standards for the entire industry. Although we think the test should be based on standards, the ABO's impact is so large the exam actually SETS the standard.

2nd is that many people (yea, me included) only studied enough to pass the test. A harder test would mean some people (not all) would take it more seriously, study and prepare more. We would simply leave the testing cycle better educated.

There was a time about 50 years ago where the Bar Exam was not impossibly difficult (remember the movie "Catch me if You Can" where Frank just took the Bar and passed? its a true story) and many attorneys apprenticed as clerks and paralegals, took the test and were lawyers. As the TEST increased in difficulty, more future attorneys studied formally to meet the requirements. The difficulty of the test actually created a market for education. Now 99.9% of lawyers have JD degree, and spend another $20K after school for Bar exam test prep courses. The increase in just the test difficulty changed the entire market.

The same holds true for optical, as the test gets easier it diminishes the need for education, formal or not.

This is another chicken/egg story, and nearly everyone has it wrong. It's not the ABO's philosophy to dumb down the exam. They do not set the standard for the exam. It's been opticians' philosophy to dumb themselves down. The standard is set by the sample group from the profession. If too many fail, the test's validity is called into question. Then the test must be dumbed down to match the population of opticians who have dumbed themselves down.

The ABO is not, and has never, set the standard for opticianry with the NOCE or the CLRE. They are a reflection of the field of opticians. If you don't like what you see in the mirror, do you blame the mirror? It seems that opticians do. If you want change, we have to change US, not the mirror.

Please re-read my posts and the links to testing and testing procedures. Not one person yet has posted anything in this thread indicating that they understand how this works. Many have posted saying how they think it ought to work. I know Warren knows, and I suspect DRK knows. The entire point of this thread is to TELL YOU HOW IT WORKS, NOT ASK HOW YOU THINK IT SHOULD WORK.
Until at least a small percentage of influential opticians can understand this, we will continue spinning our wheels, pointing the finger in the wrong direction (at the mirror).

Warren,
You are correct in that the Apprenticeship system of the past was a failure. But not a miserable one, just a misplaced one. Although I believe strongly that formal college education is the future of Opticianry, I also believe that a good and solid Apprenticeship is the only way to get to that point. We can't just focus on educating future Opticians if there is no Optician able to teach them.

The only way to raise the bar and educate future opticians is to educate the current ones as well.

Although you see Apprenticeship competing with formal education, I do not, I see it complimenting it. Although it was a failure and excuse for cheap labor, I still see the possibility that a better Apprenticeship program could be developed to address those issues and form a foundation that support and help formal education prosper.

(disclaimer: I am currently an educator at a College level Opticianry program that focuses on Apprentice education, so I have some bias)

It is not about us any longer. We must focus on the future of the field. I am not certain, but since there is only one school in Washington, I assume you teach for Seattle Central, and I wish you the best in maintaining your program. I wrote several letters to the legislature there when your funding was removed. Please send my best to the director, were classmates.

Now to apprenticeship, I am not certain where you gained your information, but study after study (not opinion) indicates little training actually goes into our "apprenticeships". It is cheap labor, unfortunately. Most of the folks already in the field do not want, and will not undertake any additional education. We must seek to strengthen standards for those who seek to enter the field after some predetermied date.In the EARLY 2000s, OAA passed a resolution to seek to make the Associate Degree the entry poing by the year 2005 if memory serves me correctly. Like many things in OAA, new leaders come every year and often do not carry forth these agendas, but t hat is another story all together. To start, we must increase the verocity of the ABO/NCLE. We also must require all future Opticians to gain some solid education in some form (and that shoild be determied by folks ineducation, not folks who have never entered a post-secondary classroom). Of course there must be a hands-on component in our process of educating those futurre practitioners.......no one said it should go away, but the very name apprenticeship impies more trades-like fields, not a professionally oriented field of study. Now, if folks here wish to be tradesmen, then so be it, but most of the time I see things discussed here, many of these high school graduates (in most cases) loudly tout their professional abilities and their "profession". You cannot have it both ways.......at least not much longer.

I really don't know why I continue this debate. I seem to be drawn to it, and know in my heart I am making little headway. But I keep trying. I have won some over, and hope you will all at least think about my hypothesis before you just depend on your own experiences. Opticianry can be so much more than it is if we can only can agree on a common direction.

One additional comment. Some who come from strong licensed states have no real clue about others beyond their borders. While there are a few solid, well-prepared Opticians out there in unlicensed states, the vast majority followed the path prescribed for them. Remember the stiff requirement in those states to call yourself an Optician is a pulse.

Thank you for saying this. I know the NOCE test isn't enough, but out here, it is all we have to show competency. Not excellence, not even average, but competency. Take it away on a national level and we have nothing because the state will not require licenses.

Perhaps there should be a list made of all the things that we actually do during our work day as opticians and ask what kind of knowledge do we draw upon to accomplish those tasks. Then ,maybe we can have a realistic starting point for a MINIMUM KNOWLEDGE BASE. EXACTLY what do we need to know about and how to do to protect the public from harm? Just askin'... :P

Perhaps there should be a list made of all the things that we actually do during our work day as opticians and ask what kind of knowledge do we draw upon to accomplish those tasks. Then ,maybe we can have a realistic starting point for a MINIMUM KNOWLEDGE BASE. EXACTLY what do we need to know about and how to do to protect the public from harm? Just askin'... :P

No need to re-invent the wheel. A ‘Competency Matrix’ for opticianry was already prepared in Canada over ten (10)-years ago. First, all Canadian opticians in all provinces (except Quebec) agreed that opticianry was done in exactly the same manner wherever one resided in Canada. Then they sent out 1200 questionnaires to stakeholders listing all the optical competencies needed to properly dispense. Various educators, regulators, store owners, employee opticians, chains, etc commented on this list of proposed competencies and a ‘competency matrix’ was developed. Then all Canadian educators were called together to discuss these individual competencies and to categorize each competency according to the classifications... MUST KNOW, SHOULD KNOW and NICE TO KNOW (they used different terminology). Since schools had to be given some curriculum autonomy, it was established that 100% of the MUST KNOW (or core competencies) and 80% of the SHOULD KNOW must be taught, and the schools could teach all the NICE TO KNOW topics they wished. An important point was stressed... required hours of instruction in any topic was never mandated, since new technological advances in learning aids were rapidly becoming available and innovation in teaching methods was to be encouraged, so less training hours would be needed to learn any individual competency. This was a marked departure from the 19th-century model of mandatory two (2)-years of training. The new educational philosophy was “It’s all about competencies, and not the process”. So no 6-month or 12-month or 24-month full-time, or 48-month NAIT apprenticeship-style program length was imposed on schools. If graduates could pass the rigorous NACOR National exams in Dispensing Eyewear and Contact Lens Fitting , they were deemed competent in those fields. Expert psychometricians were hired to develop these National exams, with a test content outline using the Modified Angoff standard setting method (Yes Wes, I do know something about how standarized test are prepared). Canada’s nine (9)-provinces all agreed that the passing of these National NACOR exams would constitute competency. Also, our federal (National) government convinced all provinces to adopt their ‘National labor mobility initiative’ for every licensed occupation, vocation or profession in Canada. All provincial Health Ministers signed on to this labor mobility initiative, and the provincial opticianry regulators were required to accept this labor mobility initiative. They could no longer put up artificial barriers-to-entry in their provinces. So, hopefully this Canadian experience will help in discussions at the upcoming SUMMIT.

Perhaps there should be a list made of all the things that we actually do during our work day as opticians and ask what kind of knowledge do we draw upon to accomplish those tasks. Then ,maybe we can have a realistic starting point for a MINIMUM KNOWLEDGE BASE. EXACTLY what do we need to know about and how to do to protect the public from harm? Just askin'... :P

Where have you been? There is one available, and has been for years. The ABO/NCLE has completed a very specific task analysis several times, and it it repeated at a cost of thousands of dollars from time to time. But you must also remember, the same is not done for true professions. They have a specific sphere of knowledge that all must master prior to entering the profession, and come with a required education that is similar in all jurisdictions. To limit them to specific technical tasks precludes things like critical thinking and problem solving that comes with education at particular levels. An example is found in Nursing. There are AAS degree holders who are RNs, and those with Bachelor's degrees who are the managers, and perform other leadership roles both administrative and clinical. The difference in the two is found in the critical thinking/problems solving aspect of the 4-year degree. We continue to argue that even a 2-year degree is too much, but if we are to really be a profession, this is not even enough. It is not about technical proficiency, which is assumed, and must be verified with the conferral of a degree, and the passing of state licensing exams in every state. In Opticianry only 22 states offer a license, while 27 require a pulse.

Where we seem to differ is in what to do for current Opticians, and I am afraid there will be no common ground. Several on this board have tried for many years to accomplish that, and the same argument are heard, such as yours, from new folks every year who think they have an answer. I have done the research, and I can tell you, almost anyone can do what an Optician does in this country, even in licensed states. Folks can work for ODs (who pay the least of anyone, a clear indication of the value they place on us) and dispense all day without the doc being in the office in most states!

We must now focus on the future, and make some necessary changes in the field for folks who wish to enter after a specific date. It will provide help to some of the younger folks here, but folks like me, near the end of my career, will not see it happen. It will be a slow process if it ever accepted. The other direction is to simply do away with all licenses, and just let the market drive the field. That is what is happening in your state. Opticians are poorly paid and largely not proficient. You are not alomne, mind you, there are 27 just like you.....only smaller.

From your post above you must be younger, because the task analysis is well known, and been around many years. But I like the way you seek to contribute, and wish you well. Keep up the dialogue. Texas needs new blood to help them out down there. In many of my lectures there I would often look into the audience and see the "deer in the headlights" look from many......even when discussing what I felt were basic topics. Make it your quest to improve things there.

DONALD,
I wish I was younger! NO, I've been doing opticianry for MDs ODs and independants since 1985, ABOC in 1989---just kept renewing. I quickly caught on to the fact that in TX beyond the ABOC and being able to perform finish work the powers that be are not willing to reward you financially. I also have a BS in another completely different field.
I have heard this talk for years and years and years. I wish that something could be done for us oldtimers. I like what Bill West said in another thread (be the best optician you can be and make the most accurate well fitted affordable pair of glasses on God's green Earth). I feel that if the market did run things (deregulation) that All of the good and great opticians (people skills and optical skills working together in harmony) would rise to the top and we all would earn a good living and retire knowing that we contributed to the good of the world. IF only we get get the rx's. I guess I picked up enough knowledge and skills along the way that I've been able to earn a living. I am grateful but would love to earn more.

I have no desire to become an optical engineer or a PAL designer. I acurately fill the Rx's that are brought to me by trusting people who want to see better. I suggest lens designd based on personal experience (I'm presbyopic) and based on information from the manufacturer. I take accurate measurements ,make sure that the lenses are made correctly and skillfully adjust the eyewear to fit the patient. If a problem arises,I don't say "just wear it a few weeks, you'll adapt". instaed I carefully LISTEN to what the patient's concerns and difficulties are and then come up with a solution.

How did the OAA get Eyeglass II passed? It seems that back then they had a lot of political clout.

Sorry I was rambling... I do hope the best for all that frequent these conversations. A great many of you are a lot smarter than I. I would like to add that back in '87 I got my foundation working with two good guild opticians and I prepped for the ABO by studying a book named Professional Dispensing for Opticianry and a real good self study course called "OPTICIAN". I passed the '89 ABOC the 1st time around (BUT it might have been made easy by then... it seemed difficult though.

Also over the years Ive kept up my ABOC by doing CE's. From some of them I've learned a great deal and have been able to keep up with technology. Thanks to those of you who write them and make them available to the rest of us, we really do learn from the more technical ones (especially on digital PAL fitting,wrap compensation etc)

Years ago my firm was contracted to develop an entry-level, competency-based practical examination concentrating on objective material. Candidates are provided a complete list of competencies to be tested and allowed to use their own equipment on the exam. The statistics used in the development protocols and ongoing test analyses are those commonly used by psychometricians to design, administer, and interpret quantitative tests.

Item Difficulty shows the percentage of applicants who answered the question correctly. Items that are excessively “easy” are those where more than 90% of the test takers answered correctly and items that were excessively difficult are those where less than 30% of the test takers answered correctly. The following are a few selected questions from 2011:

From a pair of mounted bifocal lenses:neutralize the distance portion of the lenses 75%determine the add power 49%measure the distance between prism reference points 34%measure the distance between optical centers 63%measure the seg height 61%identify the seg width 78%analyze the lenses for unwanted vertical prism 46%

From two pairs of mounted single vision lenses:neutralize the distance portion of the lenses 65%measure the distance between optical centers 70%analyze the lenses for unwanted vertical prism 62%

Given a spectacle frame and Rx for progressive lenses:determine the monocular decentration 62%determine the fitting cross drop/raise 62%

Given a spectacle frame and Rx for visible bifocals:determine the seg drop/raise per lens 59%

Using the provided material/information:calculate the distance compensated power using a vertex distance compensation chart 48%calculate vertical imbalance 45%split prism for best cosmetic effect 59%transpose a prescription 78%

While the overall pass rate hovers in the 50% range, several licensing boards have deemed this exam to be “too easy.” After years of reviewing the test statistics, it is my belief that opticians are simply not being taught the basic technical skills necessary to function in an unsupervised environment. Roy

Where have you been? There is one available, and has been for years. The ABO/NCLE has completed a very specific task analysis several times, and it it repeated at a cost of thousands of dollars from time to time. But you must also remember, the same is not done for true professions. They have a specific sphere of knowledge that all must master prior to entering the profession, and come with a required education that is similar in all jurisdictions. To limit them to specific technical tasks precludes things like critical thinking and problem solving that comes with education at particular levels. An example is found in Nursing. There are AAS degree holders who are RNs, and those with Bachelor's degrees who are the managers, and perform other leadership roles both administrative and clinical. The difference in the two is found in the critical thinking/problems solving aspect of the 4-year degree. We continue to argue that even a 2-year degree is too much, but if we are to really be a profession, this is not even enough. It is not about technical proficiency, which is assumed, and must be verified with the conferral of a degree, and the passing of state licensing exams in every state. In Opticianry only 22 states offer a license, while 27 require a pulse.

Where we seem to differ is in what to do for current Opticians, and I am afraid there will be no common ground. Several on this board have tried for many years to accomplish that, and the same argument are heard, such as yours, from new folks every year who think they have an answer. I have done the research, and I can tell you, almost anyone can do what an Optician does in this country, even in licensed states. Folks can work for ODs (who pay the least of anyone, a clear indication of the value they place on us) and dispense all day without the doc being in the office in most states!

We must now focus on the future, and make some necessary changes in the field for folks who wish to enter after a specific date. It will provide help to some of the younger folks here, but folks like me, near the end of my career, will not see it happen. It will be a slow process if it ever accepted. The other direction is to simply do away with all licenses, and just let the market drive the field. That is what is happening in your state. Opticians are poorly paid and largely not proficient. You are not alomne, mind you, there are 27 just like you.....only smaller.

From your post above you must be younger, because the task analysis is well known, and been around many years. But I like the way you seek to contribute, and wish you well. Keep up the dialogue. Texas needs new blood to help them out down there. In many of my lectures there I would often look into the audience and see the "deer in the headlights" look from many......even when discussing what I felt were basic topics. Make it your quest to improve things there.

I wish you the best.

The pie for those 22 states is huge....around 150 million people. 36 million extra if take California and another 25 million if we take Texas...that is close to three times the size of Canada as far as population... If those figures are correct there is a shortage of opticians...but the reason we dont have that shortage is that independent opticianry capitulated a decade ago independence. The market is shared with the chains and they own in my opinion 60% of the dispensaries with a 20% owned by optometrist and 15% owned by Ophthalmology so that leaves independent optician owned dispensaries to about
5 %. The question you should ask yourself as an educator is who is your market and geared towards that segment. I would rather see a shorter version of optical skill transferred in a program that last 6 months and the rest let it be a business degree option if we are to cater the new breed of opticians to the chains or the optometrists...or a 6 months opticianry skills program with an ophthalmic technology (1.5 yrs) geared toward ophthalmology. I dont think the current view of opticianry associates degrees should serve only 5% of optical owned dispensaries.

The question you should ask yourself as an educator is who is your market and geared towards that segment. I would rather see a shorter version of optical skill transferred in a program that last 6 months and the rest let it be a business degree option if we are to cater the new breed of opticians to the chains or the optometrists...or a 6 months opticianry skills program with an ophthalmic technology (1.5 yrs) geared toward ophthalmology. I dont think the current view of opticianry associates degrees should serve only 5% of optical owned dispensaries. CNG

I still believe in an associates degree in opticianry with emphasis in business or ophthalmology. Here in the states most licensed opticians end up managing chain stores or optometric offices so why not require the business part. Optometrists cannot delegate like ophthalmology. A well trained ophthalmology tech with opticianry background is more valuable than you can imagine. The point is we have to know who is going to be the optician employer....since we have lost the battle and most of us opticians are employees. I would have been an employee if I could get a job paying me what I used to earn when I was in Ophthalmology. Opticianry has been good to me..it has been actually a saver.

I still believe in an associates degree in opticianry with emphasis in business or ophthalmology. Here in the states most licensed opticians end up managing chain stores or optometric offices so why not require the business part. Optometrists cannot delegate like ophthalmology. A well trained ophthalmology tech with opticianry background is more valuable than you can imagine. The point is we have to know who is going to be the optician employer....since we have lost the battle and most of us opticians are employees. I would have been an employee if I could get a job paying me what I used to earn when I was in Ophthalmology.

DASHED!! So much for a new convert.

And now an AAS degree in opticainry is to serve as an undergraduate degree requirement in the new ?-year ophthalmology technician (OT?) credential, just to find a job in Florida?

Tell me, how many months/years did your on-the-job ophthalmology tech training take before you considered yourself a competent OT?

Years ago my firm was contracted to develop an entry-level, competency-based practical examination concentrating on objective material. Candidates are provided a complete list of competencies to be tested and allowed to use their own equipment on the exam. The statistics used in the development protocols and ongoing test analyses are those commonly used by psychometricians to design, administer, and interpret quantitative tests.

Item Difficulty shows the percentage of applicants who answered the question correctly. Items that are excessively “easy” are those where more than 90% of the test takers answered correctly and items that were excessively difficult are those where less than 30% of the test takers answered correctly. The following are a few selected questions from 2011:

From a pair of mounted bifocal lenses:neutralize the distance portion of the lenses 75%determine the add power 49%measure the distance between prism reference points 34%measure the distance between optical centers 63%measure the seg height 61%identify the seg width 78%analyze the lenses for unwanted vertical prism 46%

From two pairs of mounted single vision lenses:neutralize the distance portion of the lenses 65%measure the distance between optical centers 70%analyze the lenses for unwanted vertical prism 62%

Given a spectacle frame and Rx for progressive lenses:determine the monocular decentration 62%determine the fitting cross drop/raise 62%

Given a spectacle frame and Rx for visible bifocals:determine the seg drop/raise per lens 59%

Using the provided material/information:calculate the distance compensated power using a vertex distance compensation chart 48%calculate vertical imbalance 45%split prism for best cosmetic effect 59%transpose a prescription 78%

While the overall pass rate hovers in the 50% range, several licensing boards have deemed this exam to be “too easy.” After years of reviewing the test statistics, it is my belief that opticians are simply not being taught the basic technical skills necessary to function in an unsupervised environment. Roy

Interesting...

No disrespect meant here, but so much of the above is now done either automatically or is under the radar. I'm not sure how much we should expect candidatesto know about things such as decentration. Exposure to yes, mastery of, no.

I am certainly guilty of organization bashing including the ABO. If, as you have backed up with proof, the ABO is just doing what it must then the ABO cannot be held at fault. You are 100% correct in saying that it is "our" collective fault not the agencies fault.

I do have two questions from the discussion:
1) When does an agency, regardless of process, become ethically negligent in offering something of little or no value? Does the umbrella agency step in at some time and say, this field has such a low standard that this test is now invalid? Who is minding the store?
2) Why did you use the term organizations and not organization?

I am not happy with the stats that not even 3 out of 4 can get a distance RX!!

I am sorry, but if you cannot get the distance RX correct; STOP THE TEST!

When I found out that a long-term employee of mine was not actively trial framing people- she did not feel confident- I went crazy on myself and the rest of the staff. How could we as a group fail to this level and let this slip past us?

She was let go soon after- this was not all she did not know- and her attitude towards education was poor at best. I have a complete training program we developed and it ensures 101 before we ever get to 201, why go forward if the basics are not at 100%. We failed our own training because we did not follow-up after 6 years and figured she got it.

The is no excuse for not requiring at least a 85% pass rate on the basics; that is being lax and allowing our standards to be held back at 85%.

If you cannot do basic functions at the 99% level; who needs you in the practice. This is not rocket science!

Craig the apprentice who got licensed by reading the exam questions the week before the tests! They were way too easy and the same must not be brought forward.

Tmorse I think you have missed the point that it is no longer opticianry the one that will be employing the yound opticians it will be most likely the chains, an ophthalmology office or an optometrists. The training has to be geared towards that. A six months training will not cut it because no one in their right mind will go to school for 2 years to only earn minimun wages. A six months curriculum that you proposes simply lowers the standard in all of the licensed states even though it is definetely better than apprenticeship, now if they require a prerequisite degree then your six months training would be worth it.

@ John Seegers:The OAA is another organization that gets quite a bit of bashing. That was the reason for the plural. We don't join. We don't support. If they are weak and ineffectual, why do you suppose that is? If we do not support or participate, why do we not blame ourselves?

A six months training will not cut it because no one in their right mind will go to school for 2 years to only earn minimun wages. A six months curriculum that you proposes simply lowers the standard in all of the licensed states even though it is definetely better than apprenticeship... CNG

Huhh??

What is the licensed educational standard... a ‘must-have’ program length? To impress the other O’s? Why not consider a new and modern standard of ‘demonstrating required optical competencies’, no matter how achieved, with rigorous written and practical testing to follow.Check the course outlines in our BC Optics program and look at the competencies achieved. (no, no, not the program length)... just the various opticianry competencies listed. So what’s missing?. With Internet, you have access to the entire library of the world, you can find answers to any optical question immediately and your personal learning curve can dramatically increase… if you choose to take advantage of modern technology. We teach theory, formulas and optics inb our program, and our grads can troubleshoot any non-adapt situation. However, I am satisfied to have our 6-month Optician/Contact Lens Fitter course, between the 2-year AAS program and longer-term apprenticeship training. After all, it’s been our niche market for the past 28-years, You cannot please everybody.

[QUOTE=price;419253]Tx11,
Step up do something. I use to live in Austin,TX. I was a member of Roatx.[/QUOT

Im curious. Which organization do I join and send my hard earned money to, that will make it their #1 priority to prevent anyone from dispensing eyewear in the great state of Texas without having acheived the basic ABOC? I read that it has been made easier over the years, but still it seems to be filtering out those who absolutely do not have a clue as to what they are doing outside of increasing the amount of the sale.

I know that education does have to change for future opticians. AND they should not be scared of that (I'm sure that enough time will be allowed to grasp the optical concepts needed to recreate a profession) I agree with Barry above... that much of the technical expertise we have been talking about here is either done automatically or under the radar.

IT IS OKAY FOR CANDIDATES TO FAIL AN ABO THAT TESTS ON THE THINGS THAT WE ACTUALLY DO DURING OUR WEEK DAY.IT IS OKAY TO WEED OUT CANDIDATES WHO CANNOT MASTER THE MINIMUM REALISTIC REQUIREMENTS TO DISPENSE PRECRIPTION EYEWEAR. Less incompetence --better for the public. Fewer qualified opticians---better for the opticians. WIN WIN
.